PDA

View Full Version : Plot holes vs. saying no



Talakeal
2016-06-13, 02:58 PM
A few months back I had a rather long thread detailing a lull in my session where the players were confused, frustrated, and / or bored with a seeming inability to figure out which path to take.

I got a. Lot of advice from that thread, some good some bad, but two major things kept cropping up.

1: A lot of people said that telling a player "no" frustrates them and a good DM always finds a way to make a players's plan work no matter how unlikely it seems.

2: A lot of people were going over the campaign with a fine tooth comb and finding seeming inconsistencies in the setup, saying that such "plot holes" took the players out of the game and made it harder to act in character once the illusion of versimilitude had been shattered.

Now, these are both good pieces of advice, but in my mind they seem to be somewhat contradictory. I am writing a new adventure and am genuinly trying to step up my game, but I am not sure how to reconcile this apparent paradox.

For example, if I let the players kill the fire dragon using a fireball despite its immunity to fire, wont that create plot holes about how it lived unharmed sleeping on a lava bed in a volcano lair? If the king sends out the heroes to rescue his daughter from a dragon and they are able to hire a small band of mercenaries to kill the dragon for them, wont they question why the king didnt just hire the mercenaries in the first place and cut out the middle man?

How can I always say yes without creating plot holes? Where should I draw the line? If I have to choose between one or the other, which should I choose and how should I handle the resulting fallout?

Thanks!

WarKitty
2016-06-13, 03:01 PM
Personally, I wouldn't think of it as saying "yes." I'd think of it as saying "no, but." So in the fireball example, you say something like "The fireball doesn't seem to affect it. It seems to have some sort of immunity." So the player's action didn't work, but they got something - some knowledge, in this case - from it.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-06-13, 03:10 PM
The point is, don't let things just stall out, that's boring and frustrating for everyone involved. Let failures carry the story forward instead of being a roadblock.

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-13, 03:10 PM
Personally, I wouldn't think of it as saying "yes." I'd think of it as saying "no, but." So in the fireball example, you say something like "The fireball doesn't seem to affect it. It seems to have some sort of immunity." So the player's action didn't work, but they got something - some knowledge, in this case - from it.

The rule about not saying no is not based on the players always succeeding, but giving them a chance to fail and considering new ideas as opposed to railroading, which is a tendency of newer DMs.

If something won't work, don't change it unless in doing so it makes the plot better. Saying dragons known for fire immunity are now not is a bad example. Changing the plot to explain why the king didn't hire mercenaries is a better one. Didn't make sense, so change it to well, would YOU trust your daughter to some random murderhobos?

kyoryu
2016-06-13, 03:21 PM
The rule about not saying no is not based on the players always succeeding, but giving them a chance to fail and considering new ideas as opposed to railroading, which is a tendency of newer DMs.

Right. "No" is still a valid answer if you're doing something that violates the physics of the world.

However, if you plan on the PCs fighting their way into a castle, and they decide to disguise themselves or look for a secret entrance, let 'em have a shot at it. It just means that instead of the cool fighty scene, you get a cool disguise scene or a cool going-through-the-trapped-tunnels scene.

WarKitty
2016-06-13, 03:24 PM
The rule about not saying no is not based on the players always succeeding, but giving them a chance to fail and considering new ideas as opposed to railroading, which is a tendency of newer DMs.

This. Even if it doesn't work, it should advance the game somehow. Even if it just gives them some idea of why it won't work, they can use that to figure out what can work.

That said, this all goes out the window if the players do something that shouldn't work and they know shouldn't work. Occasionally "seriously guys?" is the right answer.

Flickerdart
2016-06-13, 03:26 PM
When a player wants to fireball a red dragon, "yes, and" is not "it dies." In that situation, "yes, and" is "you can do this, and I'll even throw in a free Knowledge roll. As you prepare the components for your spell, you suddenly remember that red dragons are immune to fire and you're wasting your spell."

Geddy2112
2016-06-13, 03:34 PM
The DM and the players should cooperate to tell the story. A hard no ends that cooperation and that storytelling arc.

A fire dragon is immune to fire. Let them cast fireball and hit the dragon, and realize that it did nothing. That is not saying no as it continues the story. The PC's use other spells/non fire weapons, use a knowledge check to identify weaknesses, run away to research the dragon and prepare all of the non fire based spells, etc.

Banning them from hiring mercenaries is saying no, end story. Lets see what happens if you say yes.

Maybe they could find the better merc's than the king because they comb the streets and know where all the good adventurers are, while the ruling elite can't tell a fighter from a fake. Maybe the mercs they find can beat the dragon, but the king won't work with his sworn enemies and people akin to terrorists for the kingdom. Maybe the mercs demand too much, or refuse to work with the king. Maybe the last three merc groups got slaughtered and the pc's are the best. Maybe the PC's subcontract and join the mercs to help kill the dragon. Maybe no merc groups around are foolish enough to take on a fire dragon. Maybe finding the best mercs becomes the plot of the campaign, full of twists, turns, and maybe getting the adventurers out of retirement, or to put aside their differences that tore them apart.

OldTrees1
2016-06-13, 03:40 PM
I got a. Lot of advice from that thread, some good some bad, but two major things kept cropping up.

1: A lot of people said that telling a player "no" frustrates them and a good DM always finds a way to make a players's plan work no matter how unlikely it seems.

2: A lot of people were going over the campaign with a fine tooth comb and finding seeming inconsistencies in the setup, saying that such "plot holes" took the players out of the game and made it harder to act in character once the illusion of versimilitude had been shattered.

Now, these are both good pieces of advice, but in my mind they seem to be somewhat contradictory. I am writing a new adventure and am genuinly trying to step up my game, but I am not sure how to reconcile this apparent paradox.

I remember that thread. Ever heard the tale about the Blind men trying to describe an elephant? Those 2 things are like the descriptions of 2 of the blind men, neither is a complete picture yet both are describing parts of the same concept:

You wanted the players to figure out a solution. This requires both the players understanding the situation (#2) and you accepting new yet valid solutions (#1). As others mentioned this is not to say yes to invalid solutions, but rather to provide the information the players need to understand the solution enough to come up with a valid solution and then accept any valid solutions they offer.

To give a practical example in the case of the Dragon:
1) I could communicate that Red dragons and dragons living near lava tend to be resistant to fire. If the players knew that information then they would not suggest burning the resistant dragon. Mild hints about the mountain being a volcano(describe the shape as they approach, mention the specific kind of volcanic rocks, encounter hazards like the hot air rising towards the surface / emanating off the lava pool) should get the point across.
2) Obviously if the King hired PCs rather than soldiers, then the PCs should know they bring something valuable to the table. But perhaps the PCs can use some soldiers to assist them in the PCs slaying dragon plan?


Given that you want the players to figure things out, prioritize:
1) Communicating information
2) Preserving understanding (avoiding plot holes is a tool to this end)
3) Saying yes to valid solutions
Unless the game is dragging on to the point the players are giving up.

Mr Beer
2016-06-13, 03:44 PM
I remember that thread. Ever heard the tale about the Blind men trying to describe an elephant? Those 2 things are like the descriptions of 2 of the blind men, neither is a complete picture yet both are describing parts of the same concept:

You wanted the players to figure out a solution. This requires both the players understanding the situation (#2) and you accepting new yet valid solutions (#1). As others mentioned this is not to say yes to invalid solutions, but rather to provide the information the players need to understand the solution enough to come up with a valid solution and then accept any valid solutions they offer.

This

OP, no-one said you have to say yes to every player suggestion, no matter how silly or unworkable. It's good to take inspiration from improv but you still have to maintain a coherent game world.

Traab
2016-06-13, 03:54 PM
The "dont say no" thing is more about situations like, you have setup your plot hook, and instead of biting, they decide they want to go out wandering in the woods for awhile instead. By telling them they cant, that they have to take the plot hook, you are basically telling them they have no real agency in this campaign and its really just you wanting to tell them a story. In which case I suggest you tell them to gather round while you read the chronicles of narnia. Because that isnt D&D.

Darth Ultron
2016-06-13, 03:55 PM
How can I always say yes without creating plot holes? Where should I draw the line? If I have to choose between one or the other, which should I choose and how should I handle the resulting fallout?


You should not all ways say yes.

It does seem that ''everyone'' that ''says you should never say no'', but you ''should say no sometimes'', but you should still ''say you never say no....even when you do."

Just look how people are saying ''to just say no is wrong'', but it's ''ok to let the players try something and say no''. So how is that not just saying no?

So if your using the idea proposed of ''never saying no'', but then ''saying no all the time, but still say you never say no'', I'm not sure your ever going to get anywhere.

A good first step might be to accept ''it's ok to say no''.

BRC
2016-06-13, 04:13 PM
Nobody is saying "Always Say Yes", but you should understand WHY you are saying no.

"No, The Fireball cannot damage the Dragon", because Red Dragons are immune to fire.

But, "hit The Dragon with a Fireball" is not a Plan, that's a single action. "Can I do this" "no, you cannot". Red Dragons are Immune to Fire. Done.

A Plan is usually far more complex, multi-stage process, with a lot of different factors adding together.

"Can we fight the Dragon?"
"No, it is too powerful, it will kill you."

"But what if we lure it out of it's lair"
"no, it is too powerful, it will kill you"

"What if we have a trap prepared"

"No, it is too powerful, it will kill you"
"What if we call in our favor with that Mage, and he gives us his arrows of dragonslaying?"
"No, it is too powerful, it will kill you"
"What if we trick it into angering the Giants who live in the mountains, causing them to attack it?"
"No, it is Too Powerful, it will Kill You".
Ect Ect. The Plan has many parts. Lure the Dragon into a trap, attack it with magical arrows, get Giant allies, ect, that could tip the fight in the PC's favor.

However, the DM opened with the assumption that the Dragon was too powerful to beat in a fight. And maybe it is. Maybe this is an Ancient Dragon, unbeatable no matter how many giants and magic arrows you throw at it. Maybe it CAN only be defeated by the Sword of Prophecy. But you should make sure to have a good reason before you reject a plan. Something better than "That's not a solution I wanted you to do".

The thing to remember is that, in-universe, there is no difference between an Idea the Players had, and one the GM prepared.

Consider this situation, There is a Red Dragon terrorizing the Countryside. The DM says "You must travel to the Tomb of the Hero and retrieve his Blade, only it is strong enough to help you defeat the Dragon!"

One of the Players says "Wait, remember those highly toxic mushrooms in the swamp? Let's go get some of those, and trick the Dragon into eating them."

Now, If the PC's could defeat the Dragon by making themselves stronger using the Hero's Blade, why can they not defeat the dragon by making it weaker with the Mushrooms? You need a good reason why the Mushrooms won't work.

Now, you could just say that the Mushrooms are not enough. The Dragon is too strong, and only the Hero's Blade is powerful enough to defeat The Dragon. But that is kind of unsatisfying, for a Player. "Your idea would work, but my Dragon is simply too awesome for it. Similarly, the Magic Sword I made is FAR MORE awesome than those mushrooms!"

So, good GMing techniques says Be Generous when it comes to your Players making plans. You can still say no. If the PC's survived eating the Mushrooms, then you can say that the Dragon would just shrug them off. But, if it comes down to your judgement call on whether the plan was valid, err on the side of the PC's plan being a good idea.

When do you say No? Why, when saying Yes WOULD introduce a Plot Hole.
A Human survived eating the Mushrooms, so it makes no sense that a Dragon would be brought down by them.

But, let's say that a mushroom did kill a human who ate it. Now, it's your call. Are those mushrooms toxic enough that a few dozen of them could kill, or at least weaken, a Dragon? The answer should be Yes. Players will almost always enjoy acting on Their Ideas, rather than Ideas You fed them.

Thrudd
2016-06-13, 04:21 PM
A logical and consistent world is the important thing. Unbiased rulings based on the outcome of dice and in-world logic. The "saying no" problem is one of presentation, not actual adjustment to the setting or plot. When the players ask questions and try actions, instead of just saying "no, it doesn't work", tell them what does happen and give some information that pushes the experience forward. So it isn't a game of twenty questions, where they spend ten minutes asking questions with you saying "nope, guess again."

Sure, there may be situations where the players suggest a course of action you hadn't thought of, and it sounds cool and doesn't conflict with anything already established in the world, so you roll with it, like the secret castle entrance in the sewers. But you definitely can't always say yes, and every time the players ask a question or propose an idea they shouldn't find that the world conveniently conforms to their expectations. The impromptu scenario based on a player idea would be an uncommon occurrence.

WarKitty
2016-06-13, 04:44 PM
A lot of it also comes down to game design. As a general rule, you shouldn't design a plot where the point is for the PC's to do x and y to beat monster z. Make more open-ended plans: here's the challenge, now let's see what the PC's come up with. When they come up with something, think "Is this plausible? What would the results be?" and run with that, even if it wasn't how you saw them beating the challenge.

valadil
2016-06-13, 08:12 PM
1: A lot of people said that telling a player "no" frustrates them and a good DM always finds a way to make a players's plan work no matter how unlikely it seems.


False dichotomy.

The scrappy band of level one newbs can ask to enter the fire dragon's lair. You can say "yes" or you can say "no." I agree with your premise that so no will frustrate the players, so let's let them enter the lair.

The dragon scorches them and they get to roll new characters.

This is a perfectly acceptable outcome. The party decided to take a stupid risk. The risk panned out exactly as it should have.

What about if you handwaved the dragon away so the party could live? Well then you've invalidated a choice the players made. They wanted to take a stupid risk, you agreed to it, and then bait and switched it away. It's as if no choice was ever made.

As far as I'm concerned, let the players do whatever dumb plans they want and then have the world react accordingly.

goto124
2016-06-13, 08:33 PM
In the above example, are the players aware that a dragon is much above their capability? Such a fact seems obvious to a regular player but not to, say, a group of new players who have never read a monster manual or even played a non-computer game before.

valadil
2016-06-13, 08:55 PM
In the above example, are the players aware that a dragon is much above their capability? Such a fact seems obvious to a regular player but not to, say, a group of new players who have never read a monster manual or even played a non-computer game before.

Oh, I'd absolutely provide hints. I'm arguing for letting players make decisions. Those decisions should be informed and then honored.

If my level ones to run into the dragon cave right now, here are some of the hints I'd drop:
* Wanted dead: 1 red dragon. Reward: 50,000 gold. (This reward should signal that bringing down a dragon is ludicrously difficult.)
* A dozen humanoid corpses at the entrance of the cave. (If the part is a half dozen humanoids, something that produced twice as many corpses should be tougher than them.)
* A couple corpses of something they had trouble beating. (This is a slightly more blunt warning like the one above.)

That's just off the top of my head. If they ignore all that, it's because they want to see what happens. Taking the dragon away denies them the chance to see what happens.

RazorChain
2016-06-13, 09:59 PM
Well you don't say no....because it's all right to try and fail.

You might advise the players that their plan isn't good but it is their agency to implement a bad plan.

So if the lvl 5 characters want to find the ancient red dragon to throw a fireball at it then you could caution them that it isn't a good plan in the same way as attacking a orcish horde with a toothbrush isn't a good plan.

Stupid plans often end with what I call a suicide by stupidity. I rarely kill PC's, I'm more invested in the story but sometimes the dice just fall badly and characters die. But suicide by stupidity is very common and the most effective way to wean players of it is to allow them to implement their suicidally stupid plans.

So no, don't change the world to make the players succeed, allow them to fail.

Now on the other hand you must make sure you don't suffer from a narrative failure. If the players don't know what to do next then make something happen to advance the plot.

AS for narrative plot holes, they will always exist...kinda because the players are the protoginists.
Instead of the king hiring them then there could be a reward for saving the princess from the dragon. Or if they have proved themselves heroes and the king trusts them then he might put the PC's in charge of a band of soldiers to rescue his daughter. Then you can use the soldiers as a narrative example of how dangerous the dragon is when the dragon kills them in a gruesome manner.

So in short steer away from making plot holes unless to advance the plot when they players are stuck, and even then try to do it in the most believable manner. If the players are having fun they aren't going to fuss about some plot holes.

MrStabby
2016-06-14, 06:32 AM
False dichotomy.

The scrappy band of level one newbs can ask to enter the fire dragon's lair. You can say "yes" or you can say "no." I agree with your premise that so no will frustrate the players, so let's let them enter the lair.

The dragon scorches them and they get to roll new characters.

This is a perfectly acceptable outcome. The party decided to take a stupid risk. The risk panned out exactly as it should have.

What about if you handwaved the dragon away so the party could live? Well then you've invalidated a choice the players made. They wanted to take a stupid risk, you agreed to it, and then bait and switched it away. It's as if no choice was ever made.

As far as I'm concerned, let the players do whatever dumb plans they want and then have the world react accordingly.

Just saying, this seems to also perfectly reflect my view.


In the above example, are the players aware that a dragon is much above their capability? Such a fact seems obvious to a regular player but not to, say, a group of new players who have never read a monster manual or even played a non-computer game before.

"Hey guys, its an Ancient Red Dragon! If its that old and decrepit then we must be able to beat it. I've learned second level spells now so it should be pretty easy."

TheIronGolem
2016-06-14, 01:07 PM
1: A lot of people said that... a good DM always finds a way to make a players's plan work no matter how unlikely it seems.

I don't think anyone said that at all. Rather, they were saying that the players' plan shouldn't fail simply because it wasn't the one that the DM was expecting.

Example: The players need to infiltrate the castle. You've dropped lots of not-so-subtle hints that the front gate is too sturdy and well-guarded for a frontal assault to work. But you've also put a secret entrance on one side that isn't guarded at all, and you placed an NPC in the party's favorite tavern who wants to sell them the location of that entrance.

Here, you've set up an expectation for yourself. You expect the players to talk to that NPC, get his information, and use the secret entrance to get into the castle. So far, you're doing all right.

But what's this? The players didn't pay any attention to that guy in the tavern at all! They're planning to contact one of their allies in the king's court; it seems they're going to try to get that guy to request an audience with the king, and arrange for themselves to be part of his retinue. Then they'll just be able to walk right in the front door!

Should this plan be guaranteed to work? No, and nobody is saying it should. But if your first instinct is to make it fail, you need to examine your own reasons for that instinct. Is it really likely to fail for some logical reason based on the established facts? Or are you simply making up reasons post-hoc to cover for the fact that you just want them to use that secret entrance you went to the trouble of making?

For instance, maybe that noble can't get an audience with the king because he's not in the king's good graces right now. But when was that established? If it was something you had decided previously, then sure, it's a logical reason this plan would fail (or at least, not go entirely as expected). But if it's something you just now decided was true, then you're just stonewalling your players in the hopes that their next plan will be the one you already picked as The Right PathTM. Not cool.

That part is tricky. It requires you to honestly and critically examine your own motivations. It also means you need to look at aspects of your game world that you hadn't previously considered, often on the fly, and sometimes without giving away the fact that this wasn't something you knew all along. Most of all, it means you have to be prepared to let go of some cool thing you had planned. That can suck, but the upside is that you can always re-use that thing later. Maybe the party will need to get back into the castle later without the noble's help, or maybe there will be another castle.

Remember: Just because you left Chekov's Gun on the table does not obligate your players to pick it up and shoot.

kyoryu
2016-06-14, 03:18 PM
For instance, maybe that noble can't get an audience with the king because he's not in the king's good graces right now. But when was that established?

And even if it was, is there something the players can do to get him back in the good graces?

One trick I like to use is to tell players the requirements of what they want to do - starting with three requirements is a good start, and you can break each of those down further if you want.

"Okay, you can do that, but your ally is in bad graces right now - apparently he killed the king's prize stallion. You'll need to acquire an equivalent mount for your ally to gift him before he'll be able to arrange an audience."

bulbaquil
2016-06-14, 04:43 PM
Player: "I cast Fireball at the red dragon."
GM: "Before you do that, would you like to roll a knowledge check?"
Player:
A). "Sure." *rolls, passes* GM: "You realize that red dragons are immune to fire. You can still cast Fireball, but it would have no effect. Knowing this, do you still cast Fireball or do you wish to do something else?"
B). "Sure." *rolls, fails* GM: "...Yup, it's definitely a dragon. Still casting Fireball?"
C). "No. I wanna Fireball." GM: "Okay, you cast Fireball. The dragon, however, seems oddly unfazed, and you get the feeling that the spell didn't do as much damage as you were hoping for. In fact, it didn't seem to do anything..."



If the king sends out the heroes to rescue his daughter from a dragon and they are able to hire a small band of mercenaries to kill the dragon for them, wont they question why the king didnt just hire the mercenaries in the first place and cut out the middle man?


Maybe the king didn't know about or didn't trust this particular band of mercenaries, or they weren't able to get an audience. Or maybe the king would have hired the mercs, it's just that he hired you first and you subcontracted the task out to them.

Talakeal
2016-06-14, 10:49 PM
First off, thank you all for the input.

So as an update, I didn't start this thread to rehash an old argument over an old session. I am currently in the process of planning for the follow up adventure and am trying to actually use all the advice I received (both on this board and other sources) to make for a really great game free of the flaws that preceded it and am noticing that a lot of the advice is either contradictory or I just flat out don't understand what people are saying.


I remember that thread. Ever heard the tale about the Blind men trying to describe an elephant? Those 2 things are like the descriptions of 2 of the blind men, neither is a complete picture yet both are describing parts of the same concept:

You wanted the players to figure out a solution. This requires both the players understanding the situation (#2) and you accepting new yet valid solutions (#1). As others mentioned this is not to say yes to invalid solutions, but rather to provide the information the players need to understand the solution enough to come up with a valid solution and then accept any valid solutions they offer.


Good points. I will think on them.


When a player wants to fireball a red dragon, "yes, and" is not "it dies." In that situation, "yes, and" is "you can do this, and I'll even throw in a free Knowledge roll. As you prepare the components for your spell, you suddenly remember that red dragons are immune to fire and you're wasting your spell."

That's usually what I do, when the players are doing something that is, in my opinion, obviously not going to work I let them know.

This actually is the cause of a lot of my problems, as when I tell them what not to do the players feel railroaded, frustrated, and chastised that I am telling them what to do and "calling them on their foolishness", which results in them withdrawing from the game and stalling it out.


I don't think anyone said that at all. Rather, they were saying that the players' plan shouldn't fail simply because it wasn't the one that the DM was expecting.

Example: The players need to infiltrate the castle. You've dropped lots of not-so-subtle hints that the front gate is too sturdy and well-guarded for a frontal assault to work. But you've also put a secret entrance on one side that isn't guarded at all, and you placed an NPC in the party's favorite tavern who wants to sell them the location of that entrance.

Here, you've set up an expectation for yourself. You expect the players to talk to that NPC, get his information, and use the secret entrance to get into the castle. So far, you're doing all right.

But what's this? The players didn't pay any attention to that guy in the tavern at all! They're planning to contact one of their allies in the king's court; it seems they're going to try to get that guy to request an audience with the king, and arrange for themselves to be part of his retinue. Then they'll just be able to walk right in the front door!

Should this plan be guaranteed to work? No, and nobody is saying it should. But if your first instinct is to make it fail, you need to examine your own reasons for that instinct. Is it really likely to fail for some logical reason based on the established facts? Or are you simply making up reasons post-hoc to cover for the fact that you just want them to use that secret entrance you went to the trouble of making?

For instance, maybe that noble can't get an audience with the king because he's not in the king's good graces right now. But when was that established? If it was something you had decided previously, then sure, it's a logical reason this plan would fail (or at least, not go entirely as expected). But if it's something you just now decided was true, then you're just stonewalling your players in the hopes that their next plan will be the one you already picked as The Right PathTM. Not cool.

That part is tricky. It requires you to honestly and critically examine your own motivations. It also means you need to look at aspects of your game world that you hadn't previously considered, often on the fly, and sometimes without giving away the fact that this wasn't something you knew all along. Most of all, it means you have to be prepared to let go of some cool thing you had planned. That can suck, but the upside is that you can always re-use that thing later. Maybe the party will need to get back into the castle later without the noble's help, or maybe there will be another castle.

Remember: Just because you left Chekov's Gun on the table does not obligate your players to pick it up and shoot.

I don't want to rehash an old thread, but I really do think (some) people said not to say no to anything. One guy suggested I switch to Dungeon World where failure is impossible, merely success with complications, and a few people suggested that I should have simply fudged combat numbers to allow the PCs to beat enemies with an overwhelming CR because they chose a head on combat approach.

Also, if this is really about accepting the PCs solutions, then it isn't a problem. I know the "railroading DM" is the common enemy around here, but that is seldom my problem. I love it when my players come up with outlandish solutions to problems, that's what makes games fun. The problem is usually that my hooks are too vague and the players can't or won't come up with a creative plan; or that their plan has some unforeseen consequences which make them depressed or angry that bad things happened as a result of their (successful) plan.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-06-15, 01:15 AM
I don't want to rehash an old thread, but I really do think (some) people said not to say no to anything. One guy suggested I switch to Dungeon World where failure is impossible, merely success with complications

This isn't actually true. The three roll states are "success", "failure" and "qualified success". What failure actually means, though, is more up to GM interpretation. It can be success, with an unrelated/related problem, but only if the GM wants it to be. I think what people may have been getting at, though, is the idea of "failing forward". The result of a roll should never be "and then nothing happens" or even worse "so then I try again", because that's boring.

For an example of failing forward, Empire Strikes Back. Han's on the run from the Empire and makes a roll to find someone he can lay low with. He fails the roll spectacularly and the GM generates Lando and a trap for Han. Failure moves the story forward instead of the GM saying "it doesn't work, now what do you do?"

That being said, D&D's system doesn't really allow failing forward all the time because it isn't built for it. But it's something that's nice to try to work in when you can.

Segev
2016-06-15, 10:33 PM
Sorry for the rehashing opening, here, but the reason it seemed to most posters like your last thread was a tale of "the PCs can only solve this the way I thought of" is because a lot of the reasons they would fail any other way seemed very arbitrary and almost custom-made to make their plans fail. Fair or not, that was the perception. I think my best advice, in my opinion, from that thread was to keep in mind the way you frame quests: If you'd framed it as a quest not to "save the town," but "to brave the horde and its blockade to find help for the town," it might have gone over better. This is especially so since all of your preconceived solutions were "party recruits aid for town defense," not "party organizes and leads town defense." So you set things up to be hopeless before the party even got started. Which is not entirely out of line; sometimes, the quest IS "go find help." Some of the more interesting fantasy stories out there are some young people seeking The Great Hero to solve the problem.


If you want to avoid the problem of perceived railroading, that's the first place to start: frame your intended quests so that the success condition is what the PCs contribute. It is okay for NPCs to do stuff, even to play cavalry (though try not to overdo this); but the PCs still need to have something THEY do be key to the NPCs' success, and the PCs' quest needs to be clearly defined as doing that thing. If the problem the NPCs' actions solve is presented as the problem for the PCs to solve, the players will feel robbed. Worse, they'll try to solve the problem rather than helping somebody else solve it. And be mad when they can't.

Secondly, even if the PCs' plans are doomed to failure, don't say, "That won't work." Instead, let them begin working on the plans. Ask them what they do. Role play out the obstacles. Let them try to overcome them. Maybe they'll surprise you with their solutions to what you thought were insurmountable obstacles. Maybe they won't. By letting them encounter the obstacles, you let them determine what the feasibility is.

Here, too, is where you can turn failure into opportunity. Use the obstacles and the role playing and encounters surrounding them to not just reveal the problems with their plans, but to give possible alternate solutions. This can be very difficult, if the solutions you can think of are totally unrelated, but it's a great way to work it if you can.

But again: let them encounter the obstacles and try to come up with solutions to them. Don't just say, "nah, it can't work." Have a "because," and let them try and encounter said "because." And then try to work around it if they want. Like I said, you may be surprised at their solutions.

Talakeal
2016-06-16, 11:02 AM
Sorry for the rehashing opening, here, but the reason it seemed to most posters like your last thread was a tale of "the PCs can only solve this the way I thought of" is because a lot of the reasons they would fail any other way seemed very arbitrary and almost custom-made to make their plans fail. Fair or not, that was the perception. I think my best advice, in my opinion, from that thread was to keep in mind the way you frame quests: If you'd framed it as a quest not to "save the town," but "to brave the horde and its blockade to find help for the town," it might have gone over better. This is especially so since all of your preconceived solutions were "party recruits aid for town defense," not "party organizes and leads town defense." So you set things up to be hopeless before the party even got started. Which is not entirely out of line; sometimes, the quest IS "go find help." Some of the more interesting fantasy stories out there are some young people seeking The Great Hero to solve the problem.


If you want to avoid the problem of perceived railroading, that's the first place to start: frame your intended quests so that the success condition is what the PCs contribute. It is okay for NPCs to do stuff, even to play cavalry (though try not to overdo this); but the PCs still need to have something THEY do be key to the NPCs' success, and the PCs' quest needs to be clearly defined as doing that thing. If the problem the NPCs' actions solve is presented as the problem for the PCs to solve, the players will feel robbed. Worse, they'll try to solve the problem rather than helping somebody else solve it. And be mad when they can't.

Secondly, even if the PCs' plans are doomed to failure, don't say, "That won't work." Instead, let them begin working on the plans. Ask them what they do. Role play out the obstacles. Let them try to overcome them. Maybe they'll surprise you with their solutions to what you thought were insurmountable obstacles. Maybe they won't. By letting them encounter the obstacles, you let them determine what the feasibility is.

Here, too, is where you can turn failure into opportunity. Use the obstacles and the role playing and encounters surrounding them to not just reveal the problems with their plans, but to give possible alternate solutions. This can be very difficult, if the solutions you can think of are totally unrelated, but it's a great way to work it if you can.

But again: let them encounter the obstacles and try to come up with solutions to them. Don't just say, "nah, it can't work." Have a "because," and let them try and encounter said "because." And then try to work around it if they want. Like I said, you may be surprised at their solutions.

Thanks for the reply segev.

I am kind of baffled by the idea that my adventure looked like it was specifically made to shut the PCs down. I didnt even know what characters they would be playing aside from vague concepts when they made the adventure and I cant think of any times I went out of my way to shut down their abilities. If you remember any sepcific examples from the previous thread could you please point them out? (Thats not a challenge, I am genuinly curious, maybe I can analyze my own behavior and see things I dont realize I am doing).

The basic idea of the adventure was as follows:
Session one, group of gifted young living in a small town decide to have an adventure and explore the surrounding region, discovering several ancient mysteries and forgotten sources of power.
Session two, a group of barbarian invaders hell bent on destroying the town appears and they are too strong for a group of starting adventurers and their townsfolk allies to defeat in a fight. The players need to come up with an extraordinary solution or seek out help, preferably utilizying one of the ancient mysteries they discovered on the previous day to tie the sessions together.

The only things the players "failed" to do was convince a few members of the local nobility to help (the party didnt have a dedicated face and the sorcerer didnt want to force it) and tame some griffons (the party was actively bad at anything resembling animal handling). This wasnt anything I did to stop them, it was simply their character builds werent suited to what they were trying to do.


Now, as for railroading and letting the players fail, it is kind of a damned if you do damned if you dont thing. My first instinct is to let the players fail, but someone always gets mad at me for doing it.

They dont like to lose. They are too proud, stubborn, or just plain rigid in their thinking to surrender or flee or be taken captive, and so almost every loss means a tpk and the end of the campaign if I am mot careful. I had one guy who pouted and whined and killed off his character if he let an innocent noc die, one girl who through literal screaming fits if her character got seriously hurt or made a wrong decision, and one guy who pouts and calls me names anytime he makes a bad decision based on ignorance of setting or rules because "he shouldnt be punished for not caring about the lore of my stupid game world".

Maybe I just have had bad players, and most of them I dont game with anymore, but I always find letting players fail to be a tricky endeavor.

Heck, during the game in question I let them do whatever they wanted, and it wasnt until they got to the point where they almost certainly would have died that I let them know ooc that they needed to pull back and do something different.

One player told me that he was so mad and frustrated that I let him waste all that time by not speaking up earlier they he could no longer bring himself to care or put in any effort to coming up with plans for the rest of the session. On the other hand another player felt that the ooc warning was instrusive railroading and a breech of his agency and right to fail on his own merits.

Tough conundrum.

Thanks for the advice though! Please share anymore thoughts you have.


Also, succeeding with consequences instead of failing when failure would stall the plot is brilliant and should have been so obvious. So many times I have been torn between a situation that i felt required a roll but me really not being prepared for what failure would do to the flow of the game could have been solved this way.

Segev
2016-06-16, 12:59 PM
Thanks for the reply segev.My pleasure. :smallsmile:


I am kind of baffled by the idea that my adventure looked like it was specifically made to shut the PCs down. I didnt even know what characters they would be playing aside from vague concepts when they made the adventure and I cant think of any times I went out of my way to shut down their abilities. If you remember any sepcific examples from the previous thread could you please point them out? (Thats not a challenge, I am genuinly curious, maybe I can analyze my own behavior and see things I dont realize I am doing).Sure. The big one is here:


The only things the players "failed" to do was convince a few members of the local nobility to help (the party didnt have a dedicated face and the sorcerer didnt want to force it) and tame some griffons (the party was actively bad at anything resembling animal handling). This wasnt anything I did to stop them, it was simply their character builds werent suited to what they were trying to do. At least as I remember this being presented in the prior thread, the griffons thing is what stood out most to me.

They went to talk to that noble, and aside from lacking any ability to tame creatures, themselves, they were told that these griffons/griffons in this setting were not actually large enough to hold riders. This was not information that seemed to be present prior to them trying this; whether you intended it or not, it comes off as "er, um, *gm scribbles something in his notes* Yeah, griffons can't hold riders, so that won't work."

That is, it seems to be suddenly added specifically to thwart that plan.

In my own experience with gaming, groups I've been in, upon finding out none of them have animal handling sufficient to deal with the griffons, we'd tend to ask, "Well, doesn't this noble have anybody? If not, why not? How does he keep the creatures? Okay, surely somebody does; let's find them and put them in charge of this part of the effort." And then seeking such a person becomes part of the challenge. (Incidentally, this would be a good place to inject alternative hooks and ideas via NPCs' comments or abilities. "The last guy who tried that led some hippogriff riders to that ghost-infested site, and we haven't heard from him since," for instance, would be a way to ... a little heavy-handedly, admittedly ... hint that the ghosts might be a possible asset.)

From what I saw in the thread (and I emphasize that that's all I have to go on), it looked like you shut down this idea with "that's impossible because" and didn't let them (or, if your party is not proactive enough, encourage them to) see if they could find a solution to the reason it wouldn't work.

The other major thing from that thread was that, between all the things they seemed to want to try, it sounded like you shut them down individually (again with the blanket "that won't work" rather than "here are the obstacles to that"), and didn't let them try them in combination.

So, my big advice (again) is to not say "that won't work" but rather "here are the obstacles preventing it from working right now." Let them figure out if the obstacles are insurmountable or not.

You mention here, too, that the two things they had as options were "figuring something out" or "going and getting help." The way you had the situation set up, it doesn't look like there WAS anything they could "figure out" that would work. So you probably needed to frame it as "the quest is to go find help; only you have the knowledge of the area and the skills to break out/survive the trip/whatever to get it." And you can phrase it less hokey than that, but I'm trying to get the idea across, is all.



Now, as for railroading and letting the players fail, it is kind of a damned if you do damned if you dont thing. My first instinct is to let the players fail, but someone always gets mad at me for doing it.

They dont like to lose. They are too proud, stubborn, or just plain rigid in their thinking to surrender or flee or be taken captive, and so almost every loss means a tpk and the end of the campaign if I am mot careful. I had one guy who pouted and whined and killed off his character if he let an innocent noc die, one girl who through literal screaming fits if her character got seriously hurt or made a wrong decision, and one guy who pouts and calls me names anytime he makes a bad decision based on ignorance of setting or rules because "he shouldnt be punished for not caring about the lore of my stupid game world".

Maybe I just have had bad players, and most of them I dont game with anymore, but I always find letting players fail to be a tricky endeavor.

Heck, during the game in question I let them do whatever they wanted, and it wasnt until they got to the point where they almost certainly would have died that I let them know ooc that they needed to pull back and do something different.

One player told me that he was so mad and frustrated that I let him waste all that time by not speaking up earlier they he could no longer bring himself to care or put in any effort to coming up with plans for the rest of the session. On the other hand another player felt that the ooc warning was instrusive railroading and a breech of his agency and right to fail on his own merits.

Tough conundrum.It is. As I only have your view on it, I can only offer commiseration.

Though... hrm. I get hating to fail; I play games to succeed in ways that I know I couldn't in real life. Perhaps, again, it's partially in how you frame it. Make sure they gain something even in failure. That needn't be "here's a reward." It could be information that lets them see how they failed and maybe see a weakness or trick to exploit on their next try.


Thanks for the advice though! Please share anymore thoughts you have.You're welcome! Good luck!



Also, succeeding with consequences instead of failing when failure would stall the plot is brilliant and should have been so obvious. So many times I have been torn between a situation that i felt required a roll but me really not being prepared for what failure would do to the flow of the game could have been solved this way.
It's not intuitively obvious, necessarily. I suggest not thinking of it on a one-roll level, either. Look at it from a mission or sub-task level. Let them pursue a doomed course, and let them fail at it if they follow it to the end, but have what they encounter along the way help point them to a better course for their next try.

BRC
2016-06-16, 03:05 PM
Thanks for the reply segev.

I am kind of baffled by the idea that my adventure looked like it was specifically made to shut the PCs down. I didnt even know what characters they would be playing aside from vague concepts when they made the adventure and I cant think of any times I went out of my way to shut down their abilities. If you remember any sepcific examples from the previous thread could you please point them out? (Thats not a challenge, I am genuinly curious, maybe I can analyze my own behavior and see things I dont realize I am doing).

Not to Rehash the old thread, but it was less "Designed to shut the PCs down", and more a combination of poor flexibility, and poor communication.
here was the session pitch

Session two, a group of barbarian invaders hell bent on destroying the town appears and they are too strong for a group of starting adventurers and their townsfolk allies to defeat in a fight. The players need to come up with an extraordinary solution or seek out help, preferably utilizying one of the ancient mysteries they discovered on the previous day to tie the sessions together.

Basically, you expected them to go get help from some source, but were open to being totally blown away by some other plan. It also kind of reveals the bias in your approach. You presented an open situation (Save this town from the barbarians!) but you had a preferred solution. Going in with a preferred solution is dangerous anytime you present the PC's with an Open scenario.

So, your first player (The one who complained that you let them waste a ton of time on plans that didn't work), was complaining about Poor Communication. The message "Go get help, ideally from one of the ancient mysteries" was not clearly communicated. They were looking for some other solution (Remember my whole bit about Ordinary vs Extraordinary solutions. Ordinary solutions result from the immediate situation and the PC's abilities, extraordinary ones require going outside the immediate situation.), which were failing because they didn't meet your standards of "good enough", or because they were reliant on some skill rolls that the PC's failed.

Lesson: Any Extraordinary Solutions Must Be Clearly Presented to the players.
Your second player was complaining about the lack of flexibility. They didn't like that the ideas they were coming up with did not meet your standards, probably because they were a low-to-mid level adventuring party, and the solutions you "Preferred" were on the level of getting a Lich or a Ghost Army to fight for them. They felt that you had cheated them of a chance to solve the problem on their own by rejecting their plans until they did the thing you wanted them to do.
Lesson: In any open scenario, Ordinary solutions are preferable to extraordinary ones.

kyoryu
2016-06-16, 03:13 PM
So, another question is - would you have let your preferred solution be stalled out by a couple of bad rolls?

If not, why treat their solutions differently?

When I prep, I often deliberately do not come up with a solution to the problems I present players. Doing so helps me avoid being prejudiced against alternative solutions.

As far as avoiding the appearance of railroading, it's mostly a matter of expectations and history. Encountering resistance on a plan might be seen as railroading, and might be seen as 'natural' resistance, depending almost entirely on how often you have allowed "alternative" plans in the past. If you're seen as a GM that goes along with player plans, you're more likely to given the benefit of the doubt.

dps
2016-06-17, 07:44 AM
You should not all ways say yes.

It does seem that ''everyone'' that ''says you should never say no'', but you ''should say no sometimes'', but you should still ''say you never say no....even when you do."

Just look how people are saying ''to just say no is wrong'', but it's ''ok to let the players try something and say no''. So how is that not just saying no?

So if your using the idea proposed of ''never saying no'', but then ''saying no all the time, but still say you never say no'', I'm not sure your ever going to get anywhere.

A good first step might be to accept ''it's ok to say no''.

I don't think anyone is saying that the DM should always let the players' plans work, it's that he should always be open to letting them try something he didn't foresee, even if it ends up not working, rather than just flat-out not letting them try. And yes, sometimes the things that he didn't foresee should end up working, if the plans are reasonable and the characters have the skills and means to pull them off--otherwise, he'd still be railroading them.

Talakeal
2016-06-17, 09:51 AM
My pleasure. :smallsmile:

Sure. The big one is here:

At least as I remember this being presented in the prior thread, the griffons thing is what stood out most to me.

They went to talk to that noble, and aside from lacking any ability to tame creatures, themselves, they were told that these griffons/griffons in this setting were not actually large enough to hold riders. This was not information that seemed to be present prior to them trying this; whether you intended it or not, it comes off as "er, um, *gm scribbles something in his notes* Yeah, griffons can't hold riders, so that won't work."

That is, it seems to be suddenly added specifically to thwart that plan.

In my own experience with gaming, groups I've been in, upon finding out none of them have animal handling sufficient to deal with the griffons, we'd tend to ask, "Well, doesn't this noble have anybody? If not, why not? How does he keep the creatures? Okay, surely somebody does; let's find them and put them in charge of this part of the effort." And then seeking such a person becomes part of the challenge. (Incidentally, this would be a good place to inject alternative hooks and ideas via NPCs' comments or abilities. "The last guy who tried that led some hippogriff riders to that ghost-infested site, and we haven't heard from him since," for instance, would be a way to ... a little heavy-handedly, admittedly ... hint that the ghosts might be a possible asset.)

From what I saw in the thread (and I emphasize that that's all I have to go on), it looked like you shut down this idea with "that's impossible because" and didn't let them (or, if your party is not proactive enough, encourage them to) see if they could find a solution to the reason it wouldn't work.

The other major thing from that thread was that, between all the things they seemed to want to try, it sounded like you shut them down individually (again with the blanket "that won't work" rather than "here are the obstacles to that"), and didn't let them try them in combination.

So, my big advice (again) is to not say "that won't work" but rather "here are the obstacles preventing it from working right now." Let them figure out if the obstacles are insurmountable or not.

You mention here, too, that the two things they had as options were "figuring something out" or "going and getting help." The way you had the situation set up, it doesn't look like there WAS anything they could "figure out" that would work. So you probably needed to frame it as "the quest is to go find help; only you have the knowledge of the area and the skills to break out/survive the trip/whatever to get it." And you can phrase it less hokey than that, but I'm trying to get the idea across, is all.


It is. As I only have your view on it, I can only offer commiseration.

Though... hrm. I get hating to fail; I play games to succeed in ways that I know I couldn't in real life. Perhaps, again, it's partially in how you frame it. Make sure they gain something even in failure. That needn't be "here's a reward." It could be information that lets them see how they failed and maybe see a weakness or trick to exploit on their next try.

You're welcome! Good luck!



It's not intuitively obvious, necessarily. I suggest not thinking of it on a one-roll level, either. Look at it from a mission or sub-task level. Let them pursue a doomed course, and let them fail at it if they follow it to the end, but have what they encounter along the way help point them to a better course for their next try.

So I talked to the players and you are right, they did think I pulled it out of my butt to screw over their plans. This strikes me as odd, but it is something that the forum picked up on right away that flew completely over my head, so thanks for the insight!

It strikes me as odd because I have it specifically written in the setting document I have all my players that griffons are ill suited for being mounts (not that they read it). But they could have gone back and double checked if they thought that was what I was doing (I certainly would have).

Also, the player who wanted to ride the griffons didnt want to do so to solve the problem, they just wanted to fly away and abandon the plot entirely. The other players shot that idea down before I could, they were (at that point) still invested in the plot.

Lots of creatures are different in my world than in d&d. Dragons arent color coded and all breathe fire, elves are fey, outsiders are incorporeal, lycanthropes have vulnerability to silver instead of DR, wraiths are harmed by light instead of magic, medusa and cockatrice petrify with venom instead of their gaze, etc., so I dont know why people keep d&d specific notions in their head so firmly.

And finally, even if I was going straight out of the 3.X RAW, they still would have been SOL. The griffons had been explicitly described as used for falconing, and the 3E MM states that to get a griffon to accept a rider you need to pass a hard diplomacy, handle animal, and ride check, spend six weeks training them, and procure an expensive custom saddle. If I really wanted to shut them down I could have just quoted the rules to them.


Not to Rehash the old thread, but it was less "Designed to shut the PCs down", and more a combination of poor flexibility, and poor communication.
here was the session pitch


Basically, you expected them to go get help from some source, but were open to being totally blown away by some other plan. It also kind of reveals the bias in your approach. You presented an open situation (Save this town from the barbarians!) but you had a preferred solution. Going in with a preferred solution is dangerous anytime you present the PC's with an Open scenario.

So, your first player (The one who complained that you let them waste a ton of time on plans that didn't work), was complaining about Poor Communication. The message "Go get help, ideally from one of the ancient mysteries" was not clearly communicated. They were looking for some other solution (Remember my whole bit about Ordinary vs Extraordinary solutions. Ordinary solutions result from the immediate situation and the PC's abilities, extraordinary ones require going outside the immediate situation.), which were failing because they didn't meet your standards of "good enough", or because they were reliant on some skill rolls that the PC's failed.

Lesson: Any Extraordinary Solutions Must Be Clearly Presented to the players.
Your second player was complaining about the lack of flexibility. They didn't like that the ideas they were coming up with did not meet your standards, probably because they were a low-to-mid level adventuring party, and the solutions you "Preferred" were on the level of getting a Lich or a Ghost Army to fight for them. They felt that you had cheated them of a chance to solve the problem on their own by rejecting their plans until they did the thing you wanted them to do.
Lesson: In any open scenario, Ordinary solutions are preferable to extraordinary ones.

Yeah, I hear you loud and clear. That was probably the best bit of advice I got from the last thread and it alone was worth all the frustration of having every little detail of my campaign picked apart and raked over the coals. Thanks again!


So, another question is - would you have let your preferred solution be stalled out by a couple of bad rolls?

If not, why treat their solutions differently?

When I prep, I often deliberately do not come up with a solution to the problems I present players. Doing so helps me avoid being prejudiced against alternative solutions.

As far as avoiding the appearance of railroading, it's mostly a matter of expectations and history. Encountering resistance on a plan might be seen as railroading, and might be seen as 'natural' resistance, depending almost entirely on how often you have allowed "alternative" plans in the past. If you're seen as a GM that goes along with player plans, you're more likely to given the benefit of the doubt.

Funny story. I know someone is going to use my concession against me, but I really did want the lich to rise at some point regardless of the plan because the liches eventual defeat would give me an excellent opportuniy to foreshadow a major future plot point and seque into the next adventure.

Then, when the players did decide to wake the lich, I had them roll a strength test to lift the heavy granite slab sealing its sarcophagus. I figured it seemed reasonable and an opportunity to make the brawler feel strong. Then she rolled a 1. I was kind of stunned and realized this would further stall the (already stalled) adventure and frustrate (the already frustrated) PCs further, so I just narrated it as her having to strain and struggle for a long time before eventually being able to budge to massively heavy stone, but all the while I was regretting having asked for a pointless roll.

This is really when I could have used the success with consequences vs. failure rule.

So yeah, maybe in hindsight I was a little prejudiced towards my prefered solution, or rather, I am biased towards the path(s) that allow the players to experiance as much content as possible.

I will reflect on it further, thanks for raising the question.

Now, as for not coming up with solutions or prefered ideas, I have three challenges in this:

First, I am not the kind of guy who can turn off my brain. As soon as I think up a scenario I am instinctively picturing ways it could play out in my head. This is especially true as my gaming group is currently in another state and so there is always a long boring road trip immediately before my game where my mind has nothing to do but wander.

Second, my players dont like thinking outside of the box and are easilly frustrated. They constantly accuse me off putting them in no win situations. If I dont have atleast some ideas for how a problem is solved I don't know that they arent right.

Third, this means I dont have any clue where the plot might go next. I am not a great improv DM, and I cant help but feel this would slow the game as I have to look up, calculate, and write down npc stats and task difficulties on the fly. This also means I am more likely to make a miscalculation in balancing fights, and thus might lead to the frustrating losses again. And, last but mot least, as the thread title implies it would probably lead to the creation of immersion shattering plot holes.

kyoryu
2016-06-17, 10:46 AM
If you're going to think of solutions, make a challenge and try to think of as many solutions as you possibly can. And then be extra-vigilant when players propose solutions you didn't think of.

As far as being in 'no-win situations', I suspect that paranoia will lessen after your players go through a few scenarios where their solutions *do* work, or at least have a chance of working.

For prep, you still do prep. The difference is the type of prep you do - prep the characters involved. Prep the likely used locations. Get statblocks or whatnot together for critters in the area.

With NPCs, particularly main NPCs, prep what their agendas are and what hteir plans are.

The big change is to stop thinking of the "plot" as a series of scenes, and think of it instead as a series of moves that various characters (including the PCs) make against each other.

So, then, you also offload some of the prep onto the PCs. Ask them what they want to do. A lot of times they'll tell you where they want to go and what they want to do - all you need to do is fill in the details. Figure out what opposition, if any, there is to the PCs' plan, and play it out. Who might know about this? Who might find out about this? Why would they not want it to happen? What will they do about it?

After it plays out, figure out who might hear about it and how they might react, if there'd be an immediate reaction.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Between sessions, figure out who might hear about the session events, and how this changes their agendas. Prep some situations that the players might find themselves in.

Segev
2016-06-17, 11:03 AM
It might help you to dig out a classic dungeon-crawl style module. Be very choosy about this; a lot of modern modules are actually "plot arcs," with heavy narrative and plenty of potential railroading to stay in the plot's path. What you're looking for here is more common from older editions; I hope there exist some for 3.5 or whatever edition you're running (or that are close enough you can adapt it to your system/edition of choice). Heck, there might be some value in adapting one; it would give you more feel for what kind of decisions are made in the planning of such things.

The classic dungeon-crawl's only assumption about PC actions are:

1) They're at the dungeon, and
2) They want to explore/loot it.

If you can't or don't want to try to convince your players to want, IC, to delve into such a dungeon in your existing campaign, you can take a break from that and ask them to make new characters for "a good old-fashioned dungeon crawl." Their motive is to go in and get cool stuff, gain levels, and overcome challenges preventing them from doing so. (Combat is possible and even probable, but not necessary if they can find other ways to get what they want. Like stealth; I've heard tales of players sneaking past guards and stuffing entire treasure hoards into bags of holding and slipping away without a fight.)

What these do very well is have established locations and NPCs/monsters, with things set up so that the locale responds to player action. The worst ones tend to assume monsters stay in their rooms and wait for the PCs. The best ones have mechanics for the monsters moving around, noticing what's going on, and guidelines for how they might respond to changes in their environments.

They can fall into "only one solution" traps, so be wary of those, but they're less likely to because they don't have so far ahead to be looking.


Anyway, study one or two of those, maybe run one or two. Then look into how to build "site-based" adventures. There's an angry GM article that's helpful, there, but I don't know how to find it. (And I don't always agree with him, but that one was a good one.)

Heck, look up his article(s) on Hex Crawls; the concepts behind the site-based adventure-building are useful there. You do NOT have to do a Hex Crawl to apply all of them.


But the crux is simply that you prepare the environment and the creatures/NPCs. You know what is and is not. Hopefully, you have mechanics for everything the PCs might try. If you don't...that's when you improvise. You won't have plot for it all; you'll instead know the motivations and capabilities and knowledge-sets and biases and personalities of all involved, and figure out from that how things change due to PC actions.


Hope that helps!

OldTrees1
2016-06-17, 11:42 AM
Now, as for not coming up with solutions or prefered ideas, I have three challenges in this:

First, I am not the kind of guy who can turn off my brain. As soon as I think up a scenario I am instinctively picturing ways it could play out in my head. This is especially true as my gaming group is currently in another state and so there is always a long boring road trip immediately before my game where my mind has nothing to do but wander.

Second, my players dont like thinking outside of the box and are easilly frustrated. They constantly accuse me off putting them in no win situations. If I dont have atleast some ideas for how a problem is solved I don't know that they arent right.

Third, this means I dont have any clue where the plot might go next. I am not a great improv DM, and I cant help but feel this would slow the game as I have to look up, calculate, and write down npc stats and task difficulties on the fly. This also means I am more likely to make a miscalculation in balancing fights, and thus might lead to the frustrating losses again. And, last but mot least, as the thread title implies it would probably lead to the creation of immersion shattering plot holes.

Your first challenge means it will be nigh impossible not to imagine solutions. That is fine since the goal is not to have preferred solutions, or at least not to have preferences of any impact.

In fact your nature forcing you to see solutions helps ensure the situation is not a no win situation as you detail in your second challenge. However having solutions and having preferred solutions are two different fish.

Finally, improv is a skill one developed over time and practice. Keep practicing and you will improve. Just remember "Remain consistent while being open to players having new yet still valid ideas amongst their various ideas".

Lorsa
2016-06-17, 12:32 PM
Now, as for not coming up with solutions or prefered ideas, I have three challenges in this:

First, I am not the kind of guy who can turn off my brain. As soon as I think up a scenario I am instinctively picturing ways it could play out in my head. This is especially true as my gaming group is currently in another state and so there is always a long boring road trip immediately before my game where my mind has nothing to do but wander.

If you have some problems "turning your brain off", how about you activate it more instead? Tell yourself to figure out all possible ways a scenario could play out. That way you will be prepared for everything.

Alternatively, it is possible to be aware of a few ways it could play out, while still open for others. As long as you let the players attempt their actions and use conflict resolution according to the rules, whatever ideas you had shouldn't interfere with the game. If you do notice a tendency to prefer 'your' ideas, then you run the risk of railroading. Best is to assume that everything you thought of before is NOT going to happen.



Second, my players dont like thinking outside of the box and are easilly frustrated. They constantly accuse me off putting them in no win situations. If I dont have atleast some ideas for how a problem is solved I don't know that they arent right.

I always had a problem with the idea of "thinking outside the box". What does that even mean? For that to be possible, you need to first define the box. In all honesty, I think everyone has trouble thinking outside the box, we just have different boxes. So what you need to do is to make your players' box larger.

Anyway, most problems do have a solution, so I don't think you need to have one pre-defined for it to exist. If your players get stuck, they could always ask you for ideas, and then you could start thinking of some. However, the reality of the situation isn't really important in a RPG, if your players perceive the situation to be "no win", then it WILL be a no win for them (and frustrating as hell). Those kind of reactions from your players is a clear sign you need to re-think the kind of situations you put them in, to make them in line with your players' "problem solving box".



Third, this means I dont have any clue where the plot might go next. I am not a great improv DM, and I cant help but feel this would slow the game as I have to look up, calculate, and write down npc stats and task difficulties on the fly. This also means I am more likely to make a miscalculation in balancing fights, and thus might lead to the frustrating losses again. And, last but mot least, as the thread title implies it would probably lead to the creation of immersion shattering plot holes.

If you have a clue where the plot is going next, you are railroading. I'm sorry to say, but it's undoubtedly so.

As long as you have a good backstory for your adventures, logical outcomes shouldn't yield plot holes. Can you provide an example for how not knowing where the plot might go would lead to plot holes?

Balancing fights is always tricky, which is why I use the simple formula "start low-power and slowly build up until you notice the PCs almost die". Not within one fight of course, but over the course of many of them. It is usually better to under-estimate your PCs power level, than to overestimate it. Besides, making a perfectly balanced encounter is one of those utopian ideas that never happen. It is usually much better to aim for making your fights engaging, while error on the side of easy, rather than making them balanced.

A DM has two tools in their toolkit. Preparation and improvisation. I am sorry to say that your game will always suffer unless you can improvise. Luckily for you (and everyone), it is a skill like all others, so it can get better with practice. It will NOT get better if you constantly avoid improvisation though. There's nothing wrong with making mistakes, that's part of learning.

Of course, there's always the "prepare to improvise", where you have a lot of stuff prepared you might never use "just in case". The more NPCs you build, the faster you will be, and sooner or later you will find that you can do it in 2 seconds.

Talakeal
2016-06-17, 01:46 PM
If you have a clue where the plot is going next, you are railroading. I'm sorry to say, but it's undoubtedly so.

If you are going to say that any plot is railroading you have effectively made the term "railroad" meaningless.

Having a plot is more often than not expected and encouraged in any game but a pure sandbox.

I know I personally wouldnt want to play in a game where the DM didnt have a clue where the plot was going, but I also wouldnt want to play in a game where the DM had everything scripted out and mh decisions had no impact on the plot or its outcome.

There has to be a term for the extremes of those gaming styles that does not also include the midpoint or else you are seriously hampering the ability to communicate concepts and forcing people into an "us vs them" mentality.

OldTrees1
2016-06-17, 01:54 PM
If you have a clue where the plot is going next, you are railroading. I'm sorry to say, but it's undoubtedly so.

Edit: Ignore this post if Segev's post immediately below is correct

Hyperbole to the point of inaccuracy.
A DM of a Sandbox game with generally unpredictable players will have a vague clue as to where the players will take the story if they actively listen to the players.

IRL Example: Together with the players I placed the PCs in a dojo just outside of the edge of civilization and placed a sealed trapdoor in the bottom floor. By listening I could expect to need to prep for the nearby city rather than the dungeon beneath the trapdoor. Later, further listening through the campaign gave me a 2 week warning on when to prep for the dungeon beneath that trapdoor.

Segev
2016-06-17, 01:57 PM
I suspect the disconnect here is that Lorsa (who I hope will correct me if I'm wrong) is seeing "having an idea of where the plot is going" as having a defined idea of what events are upcoming, and preparing the lead the party to them, whereas you, Telakeal (again, please correct me if I'm wrong) more see it as having an idea of what the PCs are planning, and what they'll encounter if they go as you expect them to.

As long as you aren't forcing "as you expect" to be "what happens," it probably isn't railroading.

Lorsa
2016-06-17, 03:21 PM
If you are going to say that any plot is railroading you have effectively made the term "railroad" meaningless.

Having a plot is more often than not expected and encouraged in any game but a pure sandbox.

I know I personally wouldnt want to play in a game where the DM didnt have a clue where the plot was going, but I also wouldnt want to play in a game where the DM had everything scripted out and mh decisions had no impact on the plot or its outcome.

There has to be a term for the extremes of those gaming styles that does not also include the midpoint or else you are seriously hampering the ability to communicate concepts and forcing people into an "us vs them" mentality.


I suspect the disconnect here is that Lorsa (who I hope will correct me if I'm wrong) is seeing "having an idea of where the plot is going" as having a defined idea of what events are upcoming, and preparing the lead the party to them, whereas you, Telakeal (again, please correct me if I'm wrong) more see it as having an idea of what the PCs are planning, and what they'll encounter if they go as you expect them to.

As long as you aren't forcing "as you expect" to be "what happens," it probably isn't railroading.

Indeed Segev is right, there appears to be a disconnect.

For RPGs, I tend to think of "plot" as events as pre-defined by the DM. As in, the DM pushes the story in a certain direction, so that the plot can unfold. I agree that it might not be the best picture, because it is effectively taking a term from non-improvisational story telling mediums and applying it to one of a very different kind.

Therefore, I don't see the RPG styles as a spectrum from Sandbox -> Railroading, with the arrow indicating an increase in the amount of pre-scripted plot the DM has. In that case, my argument would indeed be a case of the excluded middle fallacy, as you pointed out.

In fact, I am a bit uncertain if RPGs can even BE defined on a spectrum, or a coordinate system of some kind. But if I were to simplify my view it would be Sandbox -> Story driven. However, just because a game is heavily story driven, it doesn't necessarily mean there needs to be a plot in the sense one usually think of it from literature and movies.

When I hear plot, I always think of something that is written in stone. This is what WILL happen, come what may. Story, on the other hand, is more defined by what has happened, the events in retrospect.

Anyway, these terms are, like all other in language, blurry. I find them especially tricky when talking about RPGs, as they weren't invented for that medium.

It is indeed much easier to prepare a session if you know the general direction of the players. For example, before the next session of a one-player Space exploration game I am GMing, I usually ask "which planet are you heading towards next?". That makes it possible for me to mentally prepare and further "flesh out" the planet from my first crude ideas. I don't know the plot though, as I have no idea what the player will do when actually reaching the planet. Maybe just surveying from space? Infiltrating it to learn about the culture? Landing with a space ship on a pre-industrial world and start a religion? Once a decision has been made by the player, I can again know in which direction the game is moving, and thus prepare (or improvise) more.

So yeah, it does depend heavily on the way you look at "plot". I have a lot of bad connotations with it, as it's most often been used by people who are heavily into railroading.

Do you understand the way I look at things, and/or is there still a flaw in my argumentation?

Maybe I should just let Segev talk for me.

Segev
2016-06-17, 03:41 PM
Maybe I should just let Segev talk for me.

:smalleek: Please don't; I am not a mind reader. But I don't mind trying to translate, as long as nobody minds and nobody thinks I'm trying to put words in others' mouths. (I'm not; my discussion style tends to have a lot of "rephrase what I think you said in my own words," though, because it helps identify if I even understood what you meant.)


With things like your "going to the next planet" example, I imagine what you probably do is make sure you know the current situation there, who the most likely contact-point NPCs are (i.e. who the party would run into randomly, who they would reach if they tried XYZ contact methods or activities, etc.), and a few key events that are going on or ongoing. There's probably plot going on there, which would progress novel-like if the PCs weren't going to inject themselves. The interesting things are what happens when the PCs get involved in the "scripted" events.

I say "scripted" because they're not exactly fixed, but since the GM controls all the "key players" (not to be confused with PCs' players) in the events, the GM probably knows what is going to happen...if the PCs do nothing.

Temperjoke
2016-06-17, 10:08 PM
I didn't read your original thread, but based on what I've seen in this thread, you and your group might just need a little time playing together first. Before launching into the main campaign, you might want to spend a few weeks running side dungeons and one shot adventures. It gets the players used to their characters and more importantly, used to your gaming style. At the same time, it would help you get to know their characters and their playstyle. This will help you design challenges and tailor your campaign to activities that would appeal to them, and it will help the communication all around.

Also, bad rolls are bad rolls. Instead of appearing as wasting their time with a roll, if you were going to give it to them, you could have done something like "The lid loosened a little, you could almost feel it give just a bit... maybe a little more umph would have been enough..." That would have encouraged them that this would potentially work, and might be worth a second attempt, or one of the other players would help the next attempt, as opposed to just giving it to them.

Aetis
2016-06-17, 10:28 PM
If my PCs try to kill a Red Dragon by attacking it with fireballs, I will TPK them mercilessly and explain to them the importance of the Knowledge skill.

Adventuring is a dangerous profession, and foolish adventurers like above don't survive long.